More to article. Author brings up valid points, IMO.
Will the Real Howard Dean Please Stand Up?
He's had an easy ride so far, but Dean is still too hard to read
By JOE KLEIN
On the one hand, Dean is doing many of the things I've always admired in politicians.... He not only speaks plain English, he speaks unafraid English. Consequently, he has reopened the Democratic Party—formerly a political nursing home—to idealistic young people. ...
But there is a monumental "on the other hand" with Dean. There is a recklessness about the man, an adolescent screw-you defiance that runs much deeper than the steady stream of gaffes produced by his projectile candor. In Exeter, N.H., last month I watched as he called the moderate Democratic Leadership Council "the Republican wing of the Democratic Party." I could see the "Republican wing" dig occur to him as he was talking about the need to bring Democrats together. His face lit up, his eyes danced, and he couldn't resist the pleasure of the zinger, even though it undercut his intended message and might cost him support down the road. He knew exactly what he was doing.
The carelessness extends to many of Dean's policy statements. His position on trade, for example. Dean assumes that the threat of American tariffs would force countries like China to raise salaries and standards—but such a threat would merely be another form of the arrogant, ineffective unilateralism that Dean has rightly criticized in Iraq. Trade sanctions require global cooperation. Recent history suggests that most countries, including those of the European Union, are more interested in low prices than in human rights (especially in China). In any case, as Bill Clinton used to say, the factory jobs that have gone away aren't coming back, and the only way to create new ones is the hard way—through innovation and a better-educated work force. But Dean's brand of straight talk leaves little room for complexity, and his self-proclaimed "intuitive" style leaves plenty of room for error.
snip
He has trafficked in rumors, as when he mentioned on National Public Radio that there was "an interesting theory" that the President was told in advance by the Saudis about the Sept. 11 attacks. He quickly disavowed the theory, but no responsible politician, much less a candidate for President, should raise such slander without firm proof. I wonder about his often blatant cynicism—how he could suddenly, after insisting that his faith was a private matter, say last week that God had inspired his decision to allow gay civil unions. I admire his wife's choice not to be involved in the campaign and his own choice not to take a maudlin autobiographical path on the stump, but these decisions leave a void. They make it harder to know what sort of man he is. I wonder how he delivered bad news to his patients.
http://www.time.com/time/election2004/columnist/klein/article/0,18471,574861,00.html